General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[Hotwater]

CL Story on OJ Case (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html)

Welcome posters to the OJ case discussion thread on CL. I am allowing only one thread at this time bacause 1)we are due for a major software update and 2)there have been no significant new developments on the case. I may revisit this statement at a later time.

For some reason the CTV Rules have vanished (temporarily I hope), but as a reminder please post only one paragraph from a source and then give a link. TV shows you can list name and air date. Snip only the relevant part of a quote to which you are respnding rather than the whole thing, or just the users name if you are making a general reply (this will save band width) and, as always, please refrain from making your moderator crazy with personal attacks on posters and/or the 10,000 PMs that inevitably follow each attack.

Thanks!

--Hotwater

[DiddleySquat]

Thanks! I didn't know to look here for the thread here and I just now found it. Thank you very much, HH2O!

Is it possible to move the other discussion to this forum? The existing OJ thread on the "Current Crimes & Old/Cold Cases" board was started the 23rd of March, just nineteen days ago. Since then, it's accumulated 1,226 posts, or nearly 70 posts per day. The total number of messages on the OJ thread is more than any other on that board except "White House Farm," which has existed since the 4th of January (about 100 days), and averages over its lifetime 25 new posts per day.

We have put a lot of work into our OJ thread, and I'd love to see the messages moved, and soon expanded (hopefully) to a whole board!

Thanks again!

[limakey]

DS,

Thank you for the link because I couldn't find it! Have I missed something, but wasn't Hot H20 Cold H20 for awhile? Same person, just had the heat turned up?

[limakey]

For as long as I have been posting on this case, race has always been a major issue and a subject that no matter how each of us tries, we seem to miss each other's points.

IMO, if we agree on certain facts concerning race and this case, then perhaps that many of the posts that we be made on this issue will lose their sting and prevent any poster from being labeled something he or she isn't.

These are my points about race in this case.

1. The war of the covers of the news magazines really brought the issue of race into this trial. From the moment that happened, it was clear that when it comes to race and our justice system, whites and blacks had very different experiences and opinons.

2. Mark Fuhrman tried to get a disability pension and used race as a major factor on why he could no longer perform his job. That he was afraid he would become violent and whatever else he said.

3. After a two year investigation the shrink reports basically said he was liar, a cry baby and that he wanted the big bust to make his career. However, putting all that aside, he can report back to duty and if he doesn't report back to duty, he is fired.

4. After the prelim hearing, several people saw Fuhrman on TV and remembered their encounters with him and felt the need to contact the DA's office about it. When they got no response from the DA's, they then wrote to Judge Ito and to the defense.

5. Jeff Tobin writes a story for his magazine and clearly says that the defense feels the glove was planted and that Mark Fuhrman, the man who found the glove, tried to get a disabilty discharge and race was an issue.

6. Because of Fuhrman's own words and actions, the private citizens who came forward and the problem of where the glove was found, were issues that no judge could have ignored.

7. The history of the LAPD (and other police departments) have a long history of racial issues that have been going on for years and years - before most of us were even born. While attempts, IMO, were made to clean up the image, it is obvious that this issue is still very much a cancer in our police departments and our nation. Perhaps, many of us thought that all these issues were settled in the 1960's but it appears that laws were enacted years later to ensure that blacks and others were not kept off our juries simply because of their race. I believe Texas, in 2005, was mentioned as a state who was still struggling with this.

IMO, it was not the defense or the DA's who brought race into this case, it was the LAPD when they were more worried about giving a pension to a man, who perhaps really was disabled by what he saw and experienced and never should have been let back on the force.

IMO, I also believe the City of LA bears some of this as well, because once they let him back on the force, there was no way for them to say that they made a mistake and get him off the force. They left a bitter, bitter man on the force who did, time and time again, made other's police officer's lives miserable because there was no way to reprimand him without losing a lot of money and a lot of face.

For as much pain this issue has caused, I don't think I will ever forget the lessons of the trial when it comes to race. I like to think that I learned something very, very valuable and have been able to pass it on to my child.

Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject. No one is going to change their mind on their subject but perhaps, we can stop with the blame game and realize this issue is far bigger then the Simpson case. That this case brought light to an issue that needed to be out in the open and that no matter how emotional it got and will get, that it at least needs to be out in the open.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


limakey

i agree with your post totally
rayraytwo Would you PLEASE read Hotwater's requests to us for posting here.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey


Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject. No one is going to change their mind on their subject but perhaps, we can stop with the blame game and realize this issue is far bigger then the Simpson case. That this case brought light to an issue that needed to be out in the open and that no matter how emotional it got and will get, that it at least needs to be out in the open.

limakey,

Unfortunately, your post reads as though you are still playing the blame game.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

if it is accurate then it explains why most of white american businesses put oj on DO NOT USE to prevent him from making a living at his trade.


Pardon me, but the last time I looked I didn't see Black America lighting up the "We're using OJ" neon sign and offering up any business opportunities to him either.

If you are going to try to tell me that White America holds all of the power in business in this country, please refrain because we all are aware that is not true.

[Wukong]

Thanks so much Hotwater! Although this is currently only one thread I do hope it will eventually be fully opened again at some point after your ne software is installed.

Limakey,
Hotwater is the moderator for the Crime Library board. Coldwater is still the moderator for the main message board.

Thanks again Hh2O!

Wukong

[Wukong]

Diddley,

Here is a link to the last time EDTA was discussed. You need to read this again:

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=236199&highlight=EDTA

Here is some sample testimony from the link:

MR. MARTZ: It had less sensitivity, but sensitivity was not my problem. What I was asked to do was to determine whether or not the stains were EDTA-preserved or not preserved. I was able to answer that question in the negative ion mode very easily. These stains were not from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Well, we will talk about that later. When you ran the positive ion mode the next day, the more--the test that will detect the ions more sensitively than the one you did the day before, would you agree with that?
MR. MARTZ: It was more sensitive, but sensitivity was not an issue. Specificity was my issue. I wanted to determine whether or not EDTA was present and if it was I wanted to make sure I could identify it, and as I mentioned, it was not present.
MR. BLASIER: So you weren't concerned with whether it was there or not when you did the negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: No. I was asked to determine whether or not EDTA was present and it was very easy to do in the negative ion mode. I was able to determine on the first day that EDTA was not present on those particular stains and those stains did not come from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to determine with the negative mode that there wasn't EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: There was not EDTA present in the amount that you would find in preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Agent--
MR. MARTZ: I proved that on the first day.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, please listen to my question. Were you able to determine with the negative ion mode that there was no EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: I was not able to identify any EDTA on those stains.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to rule out the possibility that there was EDTA on those stains with your negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. In my opinion EDTA was not present on those stains.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Originally posted by limakey

Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject.

I agree with this 100%. I purposely stay away from the race issue because it has been discussed adnauseum and nothing but fighting about this issue is ever resolved. The debate on the race issue has run it's course hundreds of times over on this board and it is just exhausting. This dead horse has been beaten way beyond recognition. I for one would not lose sleep if the race issue is never mentioned again.

Everyone here is free to post about whatever they feel is relevant to the case as long as it is not inflamitory. I just pray to all that is holy that the debate about race is over. This discussion was the reason the board was closed in the first place.

Wukong

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by Wukong


I agree with this 100%. I purposely stay away from the race issue because it has been discussed adnauseum and nothing but fighting about this issue is ever resolved. The debate on the race issue has run it's course hundreds of times over on this board and it is just exhausting. This dead horse has been beaten way beyond recognition. I for one would not lose sleep if the race issue is never mentioned again.

Everyone here is free to post about whatever they feel is relevant to the case as long as it is not inflamitory. I just pray to all that is holy that the debate about race is over. This discussion was the reason the board was closed in the first place.

Wukong

Wukong,

The debate regarding race will continue to go on because mostly it seems that the arguments I hear from those who believe OJ to be innocent are based soley on the theory of misconduct by the LAPD due to racial hatred.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

rayraytwo,

You keep talking about not knowing if the blood tested was what was collected. The degradation of the DNA helps us know that. Such as the blood from Nicole on Simpsons sock.

The blood was not switched or planted.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
*snip*
but furhman and all the other people that injected oj and nicoles color into their minds also wanted the black boy to pay for what they think he did.

Does that include the defense? Because they switched the pictures in his home.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
le and the da has been framing people to get cases in the solved section for years. they have not been all black either. i think there was a motive to get a high profile suspect and get him quick. but furhman and all the other people that injected oj and nicoles color into their minds also wanted the black boy to pay for what they think he did. Sorry for the repeat but I'd posted it on the other thread before I realized no one was home. Took this as an excerpt (some snipping and numbering by me ) from http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.october/10.23.transcript.html
This evidence includes:
1. Mr. Simpson's blood leaving the scene of the murder at Nicole's condominium;
2. His blood dripping to the ground from the fingers of his left hand;
3. Mr. Simpson's blood on the glove he wore when he killed Ron and Nicole;
4. Mr. Simpson's blood in his car that he used to drive from Bundy to his home at Rockingham, five minutes away;
5. Mr. Simpson's blood on the driveway of his home;
6. Mr. Simpson's blood inside his home;
7. Ron's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
8. Nicole's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
9. Ron's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
10. Nicole's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
11. Nicole's blood on the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom;
12. Mr. Simpson's own blood on his socks;
13. Mr. Simpson's size 12 shoe prints in the blood of Nicole, leaving the scene of the murder, exiting towards the back of the condominium;
14. Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair in the knit cap he left behind at the scene of the murders;
15. Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
16. Strands of Nicole's hair and Ron's hair on the glove Mr. Simpson dropped on the side of his house, trying to get onto his property so no one would see him;
17. Carpet fibers, rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco found in the knit cap that he left at the scene of the murders;
18. Matching blue-black cotton fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
19. The glove at Rockingham and Mr. Simpson's socks in the bedroom, tying all three together.
20. Cuts and bruises to Mr. Simpson's left hand during his brief but violent attacks on Ron and Nicole;
21. Cuts to this day that Mr. Simpson cannot and will not explain.
22. Mr. Simpson has no alibi during the time when the murders were committed. He cannot identify a single person who can account for his whereabouts during the time of the murders. Not one person will take this stand and testify that he or she was with Mr. Simpson or spoke to Mr. Simpson during the time of these murders.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Does that include the defense? Because they switched the pictures in his home.

This is an excellent point Tazzy.

Why did they remove all of the pictures of OJ's white friends and family and replace them all with pictures of his black friends and family?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva


According to Petrocelli's book, when Jason Simpson was deposed he acknowledged that at some point his had "suspicions" about his Dad's guilt. Why would his SON even think that? for even a minute?

I was struck by that as well.

I believe that Jason said that while he would not want to see his father lose the case he had also formed a suspicion that his father was guilty of the crime.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I was struck by that as well.

I believe that Jason said that while he would not want to see his father lose the case he had also formed a suspicion that his father was guilty of the crime. AC testified that when he first heard of the murders, he also thought that OJ done it. Denise Brown thought OJ had done it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



lawyers instructions.

because at this point with most of white america saying he was guilty, oj realized that it was time to be and act like who he was.
take down a few pictures and put up a few others.
but his close white friends (fays ex)etc and others did not cease to be his friends they saw nothing irregular about this. LOL -- okay story telling time is over. How about we discuss the items I listed as why I think OJ is guilty?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



lawyers instructions.

because at this point with most of white america saying he was guilty, oj realized that it was time to be and act like who he was.
take down a few pictures and put up a few others.
but his close white friends (fays ex)etc and others did not cease to be his friends they saw nothing irregular about this.

But, this was a misrepresentation.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


But, this was a misrepresentation. It was more than a misrepresentation. It reflected OJ -- all lies.

[audpaud]

Hi All!:)

Was an avid viewer of the OJ Simpson Trial and have read several of the "follow-up" books.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?:eek:

I've often thanked God that the kids slept through the butchery, for they surely would have ended up like Poor Kimberley & Kristen MacDonald!:rose:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by audpaud
Hi All!

Was an avid viewer of the OJ Simpson Trial and have read several of the "follow-up" books.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?:eek:

I've often thanked God that the kids slept through the butchery, for they surely would have ended up like Poor Kimberley & Kristen MacDonald!:rose:

Hi audpaud,

Welcome! :seeya:

I have wondered the same thing! I am very glad that they slept thru.

Tazzy

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


would you please follow the instructions of the moderator

Rayray,

Please. We are trying to get another board open. Please don't include the whole post in your reply. Even if you are trying to make a point. It takes up band width. Plus, if we are going to carry on like this then I don't see why they would let us have another board.

:no:

[fbgweezer]

Some more 'what abouts' from the CNN site I posted earlier:
Now, the physical evidence in the
1. The Bronco was found parked on -- on Rockingham when the police arrived in the wee hours of the morning. It was locked and it was parked right near this curb where it said 360. . . Right where Alan Park drove by and did not see a Bronco.
2. It had blood, little stain of blood on the outside of the door near the door handle, driver side door and it also had some stains of blood down at the bottom of the door. And officers will testify, detectives will testify, detective Lange, Detective Phillips, Detective Vannatter, Detective Gonzalez and others that they could see inside the Bronco through the windows and saw blood inside as well.
3. When the Bronco was towed the next day to the LA print shed and then opened the following day, it had to be opened with a slim jim.
4. Blood was found in various places inside on the steering wheel, on the instrument panel, on the seats, on the center console, and on the driver side door panel, in the area where there's a little well, where you open up the door to get out. The handle is as though one a left hand or left finger was bleeding when they tried to open up the handle to get out, right in that area, there was blood found.
5. There was also blood found on the carpet of the driver side in the shape of a shoe print.
6. Now, at Rockingham itself, 360 north Rockingham, there is evidence found both outside the house and inside the house.
7. Outside the house, there were blood drops outside the Bronco on the ground and there were blood drops then up the driveway.
8. There were blood drops found inside the foyer of Mr. Smpson's house. When you open up the front door, there's low a foyer
there were blood drops found on that floor.
9. There were blood drops found in Mr. Simpson's bathroom on the floor.
10. Outside the house, on the side of the house were Kato Kaelin heard the notices, there was a leather glove found for the right hand. The leather glove found at Bundy was for the left hand. This leather glove matched the glove at Bundy, one was right, one was left, both brown leather gloves.
11. It had blood stains on it.
12. It had strands of hair and it had fiber on it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


would you please follow the instructions of the moderator I apolgize for posting such long posts but there are posters on this board that make up stuff to argue about -- I was hoping to generate some real debate.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


weezer

do you believe oj cut his hand while at bundy killing nicole or ron, IF SO TELL ME EXACTLY HOW THIS HAPPENED. The knife that he used to butcher Nicole and Ron. What's so difficult about that to understand? My understanding from reading crime stories/files is that that is a very, very common injury to the perpetrator during a knifing.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


misrepresentaiton of a what. i have pictures of white people in my house. so sometimes i talk all of them down and put up all art work. LOL -- did you go to the doctor like I suggested?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


misrepresentaiton of a what. i have pictures of white people in my house. so sometimes i talk all of them down and put up all art work.

Okay, that literally made me laugh out loud.

Do you usually do that right before a jury walks through your house while you are on trial for murder? And, do you use other peoples art work?

And, while I'm asking why do you only take the pictures of the white people down and replace it with art?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I apolgize for posting such long posts but there are posters on this board that make up stuff to argue about -- I was hoping to generate some real debate.

Please don't apologize.

When you are trying to get points across from various different areas of a webpage, simply providing a link is not always that useful and therefore your post ends up having to be lengthy.

Kate

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


much too general

was oj facing ron. behind fron, was ron standing, kneeling was ron sitting. exactly when was the wound inflicted to ojs hand and how. You are asking the impossible -- only OJ knows how he cut his hand that night. Petrocelli's suppostion was, "the physical evidence that I've described so far at Bundy will indicate that the killer had cuts or gouges on his left hand, evidenced by the blood drops that fell to the left of the bloody shoe print. Also, we know the left glove came off, because it was dropped there, and that's probably how the left hand got injured." Want to give us your version?

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
you think oj stabbed nicole and then turned to ron face to face. BUT ron put up a big he man fight with his killer. he was no easy kill. he had defensive wounds on his fingers and hands 0J HAD NONE ON HIS HANDS OR FACE. as did OJ: "Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of cuts and gouges. Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand in order to try to get free."

Also, the theory is that because there was no female screaming, Nicole was unconscious during the attack on Ron. I believe it was Lange who remarked about how very small the area where Ron was murdered was. That he would have been trapped against the fence and a tree.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped as did OJ: "Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of cuts and gouges. Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand in order to try to get free."

Also, the theory is that because there was no female screaming, Nicole was unconscious during the attack on Ron. I believe it was Lange who remarked about how very small the area where Ron was murdered was. That he would have been trapped against the fence and a tree.

In addition, the autopsy shows a large contusion to the back of her head. It also shows that she appeared to have been unconscious at the time her throat was cut.

Based on that, it would be possible to conclude that it's possible that he attacked Nicole and stabbed her several times in her neck (I believe she was stabbed there 7 times) and when Ron approached that he hit her hard enough on the head to render her knocked out and down while he dealt with Ron.

No one will ever be able to say difinitively what transpired.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


no i am asking if you konw what the experts testified to specifically as to how ron got cut and stabbed. you need to see which one you agree with. Petrocelli said PROBABLY. did you make up your mind on PROBABLY?? No, I don't need to decide anything on how ron got cut and stabbed -- because unless you were there, no one can know as a certainty. I agree with Dr. Spitz's testimony that Ron did try to fight valiantly, but he was killed quickly. He was pinned in the small caged area, taken by surprise and he did not have room to maneuver, to defend himself or to fight back. The area was very small. If you try to throw a punch or get your arms up, there's not much you could do except ward off the knife blows that were being delivered one after the other and that is why there were cuts on Ron's hands. One of the early wounds to Ron, severed the aorta in the abdominal area, the abdominal cavity. This caused an instant loss of blood pressure, and an immense internal bleeding to the surrounding tissue. After this wound, Ron was rendered totally defenseless. Dr. Spitz will testified that Ron could have struggled about 60 seconds before collapsing to his death. taken by surprise (This is a different conclusion to the criminal trial where Baden testified that Ron slowly bled to death and continued to fight for 15 - 30 minutes)

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by Wukong
Here is a link to the last time EDTA was discussed. You need to read this again:Wukong, I've read that before. I saw the testimony live. I've seen it replayed. And I've seen it discussed since. It is now known and acknowledged that the human body does not manufacture EDTA. Blood in the bloodstream does not contain EDTA. It is not "naturally" found in anyone's blood.

EDTA could have been in the blood found on the socks only - only! - if the EDTA had come from laundry soap residue left in the socks themselves. But the socks tested negative for EDTA. The chemical preservative was found only in the blood on the sock.

Would you want to stand trial for your life and not challenge evidence like that?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


Did you check out the ctv case of frank jude. the blue wall of silence is in effect.

Hi rayray,

Yes, I checked it out. Did you get my responses??

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Would you want to stand trial for your life and not challenge evidence like that? Not sure what your implying about the EDTA being in blood. The FBI expert testified about the minute EDTA that was recorded in the blood samples as coming from residue in the testing equipment. I'm not sure what you believe the amount of EDTA in the blood was but it has been proven that for the blood to have come from the purple tube, the EDTA would have high concentrations and not the miniscule amount.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by socaldiva
....It seems to be their reason for LE going after OJ...I can speak only for myself, and not for anyone else with a similar opinion. Race was a factor where Mark Fuhrman was concerned. That, I hope, is not disputed by anyone.

But I do not say it is the whole reason for law enforcement pinning the crimes on OJ. And I have never said that. The rest of the detectives, lab techies, and other LE personnel, regardless of tolerance or prejudice, are not going to want to jump in and point a finger at Fuhrman. They'd rather believe him. Not because he's white, but because he's got his LAPD badge.

But that's not to say it didn't come close. At one point in the Fuhrman/Vannatter book, it's revealed that Vannatter himself had suspicions about the placement of the glove and possibly also about Fuhrman. Now Vannatter didn't know Fuhrman before that night. He'd never met him and hadn't heard of his reputation. But he still found the location of the glove and the timing of its discovery slighly odd, to say the least. I can find that quote in the book if you give me some time.

And there was suspicion also in the office of the DA. That suspicion was such that they asked for officers at the scene to submit hair samples for comparison to a caucasian hair found on evidence taken from either the Bundy or Rockingham crime scene. You can't get DNA from a hair strand - only from the root - so there's no such thing as a "hair match." But Fuhrman was not excluded as having been the source of that hair.

The fact that Fuhrman was "not excluded" means nothing by itself. What's important is that there was enough suspicion in the prosecutor's office to result in a request for those hair samples in the first place.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
....The FBI expert testified about the minute EDTA that was recorded in the blood samples as coming from residue in the testing equipment....And isn't that an acknowledgement of contamination in the lab?

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
And isn't that an acknowledgement of contamination in the lab? There was no contamination in the lab and Dr Lee had to change his testimony to backtrack his statement "sumting wong' -- Posters continue to regurgitate the defense argument about this but there has never been one ounce of proof that any of what the defense alledged had happened. When questioned during the civil trial, Dr Lee made quick time to recant his earlier assertions.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
weezer you seem to be lost so here is a site that can give you the information
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/river.htm Oh please -- the day I start turning to wagner for explanations, is the day I come to your house to see if you still have my picture hanging.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
MARTZ LIED PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Martz didn't need to lie. There was no contamination. OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron. Plain and simple.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You are asking the impossible -- only OJ knows how he cut his hand that night. Petrocelli's suppostion was, "the physical evidence that I've described so far at Bundy will indicate that the killer had cuts or gouges on his left hand, evidenced by the blood drops that fell to the left of the bloody shoe print. Also, we know the left glove came off, because it was dropped there, and that's probably how the left hand got injured." Want to give us your version? Now that's the kind of debate I like. :seeya:

First, I'll agree that OJ is the only one who knows how his finger was cut. But I do recall seeing a huge photo blow-up of the cut finger at the trial. And a witness explained that it was not consistent with a cut made by a sharp-edged instrument because it wasn't straight and deep, but rather broad, curved or crooked, and indented. Looking at the enlargement, I was impressed. It did seem to be a curved puncture rather than a "slice." The "indented" look could be explained by inflammation that comes with cuts. But the rest of it appeared to my untrained eye consistent with a cut caused by a glass shard and not an injury made by a knife.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by DiddleySquat
The "indented" look could be explained by inflammation that comes with cuts. But the rest of it appeared to my untrained eye consistent with a cut caused by a glass shard and not an injury made by a knife. Here's the problems I have with his finger being cut in Chicago and not in LA: 1. OJ said he saw blood at his home before he went to the airport and took a papertowel/napkin in the kitchen and put it on his finger. 2. The blood in Chicago was on both the top and bottom sheets in the middle of his bed -- as if someone had laid down. 3. There was no blood in the bathroom except a small amount on a washcloth. 4. The wound was way too angry looking to have been such a fresh cut (when I've cut/scratched myself, the wound looks much uglier the second day -- that's usually when the redness and swelling are at their worst) 5. His finger has a scar where the cut was and I simply do not believe you could have that kind of wound and not remember how you did it.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
There was no contamination in the lab and Dr Lee had to change his testimony to backtrack his statement "sumting wong' -- Posters continue to regurgitate the defense argument about this but there has never been one ounce of proof that any of what the defense alledged had happened. When questioned during the civil trial, Dr Lee made quick time to recant his earlier assertions. Dr. Henry Lee didn't testify at the civil trial. His testimony was presented on videotape by the defense. I presume that means it's a tape of what he testified during the criiminal trial. Dr. Lee did not recant. He has still not recanted.

Aha! Hear it is. I found it. It was a taped (http://simpson.walraven.org/d_wits.html) deposition (http://simpson.walraven.org/d_wits.html) (scroll to near the bottom of the page) in which Dr. Lee (quoting the web page) "make the same assertion as in the criminal trial saying, 'something's wrong' with the physical evidence taken from the trail and from Nicole Brown Simpson."

As for not proving the source of the problems with the evidence in Simpson's trial, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the state. The fact that the evidence was considered unreliable by top forensics experts is reason for doubt about the whole case.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


OH so you want to come to my house?????????Come on up and you can hang it your self.:) Eeeeewwwww

[fbgweezer]

*snipped Originally posted by DiddleySquat
As for not proving the source of the problems with the evidence in Simpson's trial, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the state. The fact that the evidence was considered unreliable by top forensics experts is reason for doubt about the whole case. Don't have time to answer you with back up right now but I'll come bearing links tomorrow.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


the cut on ojs finger was zig zag at the skin. not made by a sharp knife with a smooth edge like the cuts on ron and nicole. oj was trying to puch the broken glass pieces down the sink drain with a hand tower in the hotel room, the hand tower was found by the chicago police. that is when he cut his hand. LOL -- ray knows more about than OJ -- OJ only says he thought he cut it cleaning up some glass. Of course, that's AFTER he said it was a reopened cut.

[2L8 4A D8]

Hi Everyone! Glad to see all of the changes after 4 long months.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
when paratis was told by the prosecution that the defense was going to challange differance in the blood quantity, the prosecution ran to him and made a video and Parantis changed his testimony about how much blood he drew. That was one of the most amazing things in this case, when you think about it. I often forget that argument entirely. But any time you have a considerable amount of blood that appears to be missing from a reference sample and then the nurse who took the sample has two different versions of how much blood he took, you have a case that even a rookie public defender should be able to shake. And in this case, the reference blood vial in question was carried to the crime scene. That was absolutely inexcusable. Honestly, the missing blood, the technician's evolving memories, and the incredibly stupid mistake of taking the reference blood to the crime scene - those are things that should signal to any sensible prosecutor that the jig was up. The cops botched the case, plain and simple.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by nettathirty
....Buttom line is the nurse isn't sure what amount of blood was drawn, correct? That's exactly right. And worse still, he changed his story.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Hi Everyone! Glad to see all of the changes after 4 long months.....Welcome back, kiddo! :beer:

The first one's on me. The next two ... :beer: :beer: ... you buy.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by audpaud
[B]Hi All!:)

.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?:eek:

It's an interesting question. I remember when it first happened,
my husband didn't think OJ could have done it, because any
father would have been afraid that his children would have
been the ones to find their mother like that, and it's really
amazing that they didn't. Of course that was before
the chase and before the mountain of evidence, when
just about everyone I knew was insistent that OJ was
innocent. My husband, like me and everyone else we knew,
soon changed out minds.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



weezer

the fib expert you are talking about is MR Martz

during or right after thre oj trial The Inspector General of the US
did a evaluation of the fbi lab. they found many problems with lab work and experts testifying.

Mr Martz was demoted from the position he had when he testified in the oj case. So if the IG think he was not qualified
why should I or you.
MARTZ LIED PLAIN AND SIMPLE.


ryaraytwo, more false accusations form the king of mistakes rayraytwo.

Martz didn't lie. Every time a witnesses testimony contradicts your fantasy beliefs you accuse them of lying. Good tactic ray. Just more exuses from you to avoid reality.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

1) Vannatter took the blood directly from the Parker center to Rockingham (never took it to Bundy as Netta continues to post) in an envelope and handed it directly to Fung upon arrival; all caught on tape. Netta knows this fact very well because it has been pointed out numerous times whenever he makes this false assertion. This shows how strongly NGs want OJ to be innocent. Even when shown their belief about events is wrong, they refuse to accept it; blocking the truth out of their mind because it doesn't fit their theory.

2) Any missing blood would have high levels of EDTA which was not found in any blood evidence. Since no test existed for testing the presence of EDTA at the time, Martz had to make up a procedure. He did a presumptive test for EDTA and found none. He then did a more sensitive negative ion test for EDTA and found none. He could have, and should have stopped right there. These two tests proved absolutely no EDTA was present. When he continued with the positive ion test and found an anomoly he tested his own blood and found the exact same anomoly. He concluded that minute amounts of EDTA are in human blood. When it was later learned that there is no EDTA in human blood the only explaination must be contamination of the test since his own blood showed a false positive. The main point being; the first two tests proved there was no EDTA in the blood samples in question. This also makes the question of how much blood was drawn moot.

3) In the photo of OJs finger showing the cut on the knuckle of his finger was straightened. Now imagine that he receives this cut while his knuckle is bent. Now straighten out the finger and the cut looks jagged. I have done exactly this (not on purpose, just happened to cut my knuckle with a razor knife). When my finger was bent the cut looked straight, when I straightened by finger it looked jagged. You are welcome to try this at home kids.

4) Instead of a jersey I'll bet Weezer would be more comfortable in a shirt with OJs mug shot on it.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Now that's the kind of debate I like. :seeya:

First, I'll agree that OJ is the only one who knows how his finger was cut. But I do recall seeing a huge photo blow-up of the cut finger at the trial. And a witness explained that it was not consistent with a cut made by a sharp-edged instrument because it wasn't straight and deep, but rather broad, curved or crooked, and indented. Looking at the enlargement, I was impressed. It did seem to be a curved puncture rather than a "slice." The "indented" look could be explained by inflammation that comes with cuts. But the rest of it appeared to my untrained eye consistent with a cut caused by a glass shard and not an injury made by a knife.



DiddleySquat, of course that cut on Simpson's knuckle wasn't a knife cut, Simpson had intentionally recut his knuckle on a piece of broken glass in his Chicago hotel room. Simpson's no dummy. He knew he couldn't explain away the knife cut so he recut his finger so he could give a better explanation.

June 13, 1994
Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

2L8,

Welcome back. It seems like old home week. I just returned after a long absence also.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


the cut on ojs finger was zig zag at the skin. not made by a sharp knife with a smooth edge like the cuts on ron and nicole. oj was trying to puch the broken glass pieces down the sink drain with a hand tower in the hotel room, the hand tower was found by the chicago police. that is when he cut his hand.



rayraytwo, that's funny. How about answering the same question you ask everyone else. How do you know that? Where you there? Simpson never said what you are fantasizing.

Your explanation is pure bull crap.

Simpson recut his finger right where it was cut before.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The blood was drawn by the POLICE nurse at LAPD HQ. Vannatter took the blood to Bundy and Rockingham to be logged by the Criminalist..

The nurse who drew the blood wrote on the tube how much blood was drawn.. When the defense recd the tube from the LAB it was document one amount, but the total amount in the SEALED tube was less than what was documented..

How could the defense cook up a little false tidbit?



nettathirty, and just where did you ever read that Peratis wrote on the tube how much blood he drew form Simpson?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


remember mazzola closed her eyes at the moment the hand off from vanhatter to fung was suppose to have taken place. she did not want to be forced to testify that she saw the transfer.



rayraytwo, what part of TV cameras recorded Vannatter handing over the blood sample to Fung don't you understand?

bobaugust

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
.....I remember when it first happened, my husband didn't think OJ could have done it, because any father would have been afraid that his children would have been the ones to find their mother like that, and it's really amazing that they didn't. Of course that was before the chase and before the mountain of evidence, when
just about everyone I knew was insistent that OJ was innocent. My husband, like me and everyone else we knew, soon changed out minds. I'm one who changed my mind, myself ... a few times.

Initially, I thought it was unlikely that Simpson would even be accused. Then I saw him with the handcuffs on and figured maybe they knew something I didn't. But I thought it over and realized that OJ went voluntarily to the police department to be questioned, and without his attorney, at that. I leaned definitely toward innocence at that point.

In hindsight, I don't think of the Bronco chase as being evidence of guilt. But at the time, I did. So when Larry King interrupted his show, and the whole world stopped to see that white Bronco crusing down the freeway casting a long shadow, I changed my mind again - from not guilty to guilty.

The first time I felt I'd formed an opinion that was based on more than impressions was during the preliminary hearing. It was then that I started to question two things - the timeline and whether one person could do it alone. I was then pretty sure then that OJ wasn't involved, or that if he was, he'd had an accomplice.

Even after the revelations about Mark Fuhrman, when people started raising serious questions about the Rockingham glove, I leaned toward innocence, but did keep an open mind. I had moments when I wondered during the prosecution case. But by the end of the trial, I was convinced not only that the jury was right to find reasonable doubt, but that it would not have been possible for Simpson to have committed that crime, with or without help.

:seeya:

[Wukong]

Bob,

Rayray's post about Mazzola closing her eyes is one of the more bizzarre theories I've seen. I guess Ray figures if he throws enough crap against the wall that something is bound to stick.

Bob, What's up with Dumb-azz?

Mario, If you see this send me an email:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


when paratis was told by the prosecution that the defense was going to challange differance in the blood quantity, the prosecution ran to him and made a video and Parantis changed his testimony about how much blood he drew.



rayraytwo, no Peratis did not change his testimony. Peratis always said he only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. When the defense made the false accusations that there was blood missing from the vial and it was used in planing blood evidence, Peratis was asked more specific questions to clarify exactly what he did.

No EDTA preserved blood was ever found to be in any tested blood sample. The two blood stains the defense claimed were planted was the gate blood and the sock blood. Later additional proof was presented that also proved those accusations false.

A crime scene photograph showed one of the supposed planted blood stains on the rear gate was on the gate the morning after the murders. Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was found to be richer in DNA than her autopsy sample proving that her blood could not come from her blood sample. This fact additionally proved the defense accusations false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Maybe the nurse drew less blood than he wrote..
Maybe the nurse drew more blood than he wrote..
Maybe the nurse drew the exact amount of blood he wrote..

Buttom line is the nurse isn't sure what amount of blood was drawn, correct?



nettathirty, the nurse didn't write any amount.

Bottom line there was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
That was one of the most amazing things in this case, when you think about it. I often forget that argument entirely. But any time you have a considerable amount of blood that appears to be missing from a reference sample and then the nurse who took the sample has two different versions of how much blood he took, you have a case that even a rookie public defender should be able to shake. And in this case, the reference blood vial in question was carried to the crime scene. That was absolutely inexcusable. Honestly, the missing blood, the technician's evolving memories, and the incredibly stupid mistake of taking the reference blood to the crime scene - those are things that should signal to any sensible prosecutor that the jig was up. The cops botched the case, plain and simple.



DiddleySquat. not true. Both Vannatter and Fung were part of the chain of custody of Simpson's blood sample. TV cameras recorded Vannatter's arrival at Rockingham carrying the blood vial in a gray evidence envelope at 5:17 PM. When TV cameras recorded Vannatter handing the evidence envelope to Dennis Fung at 5:20 PM. the chain of custody of the vial of blood from Vannatter to Fung took place in accordance with standard operating procedure, LAPD regulations and state law.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
I'm one who changed my mind, myself ... a few times.

Initially, I thought it was unlikely that Simpson would even be accused. Then I saw him with the handcuffs on and figured maybe they knew something I didn't. But I thought it over and realized that OJ went voluntarily to the police department to be questioned, and without his attorney, at that. I leaned definitely toward innocence at that point.

In hindsight, I don't think of the Bronco chase as being evidence of guilt. But at the time, I did. So when Larry King interrupted his show, and the whole world stopped to see that white Bronco crusing down the freeway casting a long shadow, I changed my mind again - from not guilty to guilty.

The first time I felt I'd formed an opinion that was based on more than impressions was during the preliminary hearing. It was then that I started to question two things - the timeline and whether one person could do it alone. I was then pretty sure then that OJ wasn't involved, or that if he was, he'd had an accomplice.

Even after the revelations about Mark Fuhrman, when people started raising serious questions about the Rockingham glove, I leaned toward innocence, but did keep an open mind. I had moments when I wondered during the prosecution case. But by the end of the trial, I was convinced not only that the jury was right to find reasonable doubt, but that it would not have been possible for Simpson to have committed that crime, with or without help.

:seeya:



DiddleySquat, it seems your open mind clamped shut at the end of the criminal trial. The fact is that tons of new information about this case became known in the many depositions taken before the civil trial. New evidence was presented in the civil trial and the most important evidence was the testimony of Orenthal James Simpson.

Maybe you should pry open your mind a crack to learn about this, at the very least read about Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies. Simpson did have an accomplice after the murders. His daughter Arnelle destroyed evidence when she washed his murder clothing in Simpson's washing machine before the police arrived at Rockingham. She than lied to cover up her involvement.

bobaugust

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by nettathirty
The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct? Yes, Netta. Actually, he wrote that he had 8 cc in the vial, but only 6.5 cc could be accounted for.

SOURCE (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/serve_4.html) :seeya:

[Wukong]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct?

No blood from this drawn sample could have been planted so what is your point?

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong
Bob,

Rayray's post about Mazzola closing her eyes is one of the more bizzarre theories I've seen. I guess Ray figures if he throws enough crap against the wall that something is bound to stick.

Bob, What's up with Dumb-azz?

Mario, If you see this send me an email:



Brian, ray not only closes his eyes, he continually states false and misinformation. When ever he's corrected he simply ignores the fact that he's wrong and continues making the same false statements. When he finally realizes he's wrong he simply continues on like it never happened without ever owning up and admitting to his mistake. That's just the way he is. It's funny.

I just tried to go to dumb azz and saw the server notice that the site was unavailable. This has happened before. I'm not sure why but wait a while and it should be back soon.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct?



nettathirty, Peratis only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. He never wrote an amount on the sample like you claimed.

Besides the fact your entire argument is irrelevant. There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample. No blood was ever found to be tampered with or planted in this case. Every claim the defense made that blood was planted was proved to be false.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Bob,

I agree about Ray. Seems he's not the only one with this problem. Just look at the EDTA and missing blood issues and you can see that even when proven these points are moot, seemingly inteligent posters get a sudden case of amnesia.

Thanks, I'll check Dumb azz later. Gotta drive up to Taipei, I'll check back later.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Brian,

My point:
The nurse could have drawn more blood ..

A purple top tube with high concentrates of EDTA. This is standard for drawing blood samples. My Ex was a phlebotomist during the trial and she confirmed this. Since then I knew all this EDTA BS was meaningless, but just the thing needed to keep the converted in the choir.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Yes, Netta. Actually, he wrote that he had 8 cc in the vial, but only 6.5 cc could be accounted for.

SOURCE (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/serve_4.html) :seeya:



DiddleySquat, wrong.

Peratis never wrote any amount. He only estimated the amount of blood he drew. Read your source again.

Peratis realized his first estimate was incorrect when the defense used it to claim there was blood missing. He explained in detail how he made his first incorrect estimate and how he arrived at a new estimation that was closer to the amount he actually drew.

Besides the fact the entire argument is irrelevant. There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample. No blood was ever found to be tampered with or planted in this case. Every claim the defense made that blood was planted was proved to be false.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Netta,

Now my response probably makes no sense because you changed your post while I was answering. Your original post asked what was the blood drawn into.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



IIRC, the police took apart the drains and washing machine to have analyzed for blood.. Their findings were, there was no blood in the washing machine or drain pipes at Rockingham...

Speculation about Arnelle's involvement is not FACT, besides the Prosecution cross examined her and never mentioned this assumption... The civil trial she was never asked about washing her clothing or OJ's (phantom) jogging suit...



nettathirty, you're wrong.

Dennis Fung November 5, 1996

Q. What does this photograph depict, Mr. Fung?
A. That photograph depicts me holding a cotton applicator in the drain of
the master shower.
Q. And what are you doing with the cotton applicator?
A. I'm doing a presumptive test for blood.
Q. Okay. Let's see the next photograph, please. There it is. This doesn't
show-up too well on the screen, but what color is at the end of your cotton
swab there?
A. That is a pink color indicating the presence of blood.
Q. Okay. This would be 2139. And this is in the shower in the master
bathroom; is that correct?
A. That's correct.

It's not speculation that Arnelle Simpson lied about what door she opened to let the police into her father's house.
It's not speculation that no alarm when off when that door was opened.
It's not speculation that Arnelle's laundry basket was found in Simpson's laundry room.
It's not speculation that Arnelle's clothing was found in Simpson washing machine along with a dark colored sweat suit.
It's not speculation that the dark colored sweat suit was video taped.
It's not speculation that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders.

Those are facts.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob, doesn't this put OJ's blood at the crime scene before any of the blood evidence is tested, identified and analyzed?


nettathirty, it puts Simpson's blood sample into the hands of Dennis Fung after all of the blood from both crime scenes was already collected.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Brian,

My point:
The nurse could have drawn more blood ..



nettathirty, maybe in your fantasy dreams.

The Prosecution Responds,
"Here I am being cross examined by Robert Shapiro. I mean. I thought he's a modern day Clarence Darrow. And it was just a stupid answer. Eight milliliters is what we assume we normally draw. But we never measure it. There's no reason to. In all my years, no one has ever told me that I didn't draw enough blood."

Peratis continued, "A vacutainer is suppose to draw eight milliliters." He explained that a vacutainer is a device that utilizes a blood vial with a vacuum seal that, when injected into a person's arm sucks the blood into the vial.

Goldberg asked, "Did you use a vacutainer?"
"No. With big people, like O.J. - who has big arms - I have found that it's easier to use a syringe. I used a syringe on O.J. and at a certain point the needle hit the wall of the vein and the blood stopped. I could have turned the syringe to get the blood to continue to flow, but if I did that, there would be the slightest danger that I could damage the wall. So I looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough,. So I stopped."

"When you looked at the syringe, did you look at the calibrations.?"

"No. They were on the other side. I just looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough. And that was it. Bing, bang, boom."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



EDTA, should have been found in Simpson's blood sample regardless because it was collected and stored in a vial, before Vannatter took it to Rockingham via Bundy drive?



Nettathirty, that's funny. Of course Simpson's reference sample contained EDTA preserved blood. It was his, Nicole's and Martz's preserved blood samples that were compared to the gate blood, the sock blood, and Martz's own blood that proved no EDTA preserved blood was in any of those tested samples.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Thanks for all of the "welcome backs". It is good to be back. I am having trouble typing though. Got to start reading to catch up on what's been going on!

:read: :read: :read:

[limakey]

Kate,

I meant blaming one side or the other for bring racing into this case.

When it comes to race and our justice system, I just wish people would stop considering this a game, that the only time it is played is when their is face off in the courtroom. I think it goes much, much deeper and I think it is unfair to blame one man, his lawyers and it is also unfair to soley blame one race challenged detective.

I also think that by blaming one side or the other, people stop asking the important question that needs to be answered, why did the LAPD allow Fuhrman back on the force when he himself told them what he was and why he felt the way he did.

I'm pretty sure that if we went to our supervisors and said the same things he did, we wouldn't even have been given an investigation, we would have been fired so fast, our heads would still be spinning.

It appears to me that in order for a policeman or woman to be fired from the force, it almost takes an act of God. Remember those two cops in the Jeffrey Dalmer case, well they were fired, but the city had to rehire them. IMO, they sent that boy back into be murdered, because they knew he was gay and Jeff Dalhmer was gay. Did it have anything to do with the fact that the boy was Asian?

If a teacher sent a student back into a dangerous situation, would they still have their job?

[limakey]

DS,

I have to correct one part of your post. Vanatter and Lange said they had never met Fuhrman before that night but they were aware of who he was and why they knew of him. But like everything else, they tweaked it.

It was on one of the shows they were on and the reason why they changed their story is because it came out that it would have been impossible for them not have known about him because of the incident with Joe Britton.

Their story goes they knew that he had tried to transfer into their elite unit, at least twice and MF was angry that he kept getting denied the transfer.

[limakey]

You know, the nurse's video tape testimony was the most disheartening thing about this whole case and IMO, proof of just how desperate the DA's were to win this case. Or at least proof of why they ensured they had all their scapegoats lined up to take the blame.

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know the defense was going to suggest that blood was planted?

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know what the defense was going to be?

To even suggest that the nurse never realized that he wasn't sure about how much blood he drew from Simpson until he heard Johnnie Cochran's opening statement would be laughable if it was just so darn sad!

[limakey]

Taz,

The biggest difference between you me really are two words. I have never posted that OJ Simpson wouldn't have killed Nicole, I just have posted my reasons why, he, IMO, couldn't have committed the murders or if he did do it, why I believe that one person couldn't have done this.

IMO, we all have a crime of passion in us--I consider, in some cases, self defense to be an absolute crime of passion.

While you do acknowledge that police misconduct has happened in the past, for some reason, you simply deny that any police misconduct took place in this case and I truly don't understand it.

You posted that there is no evidence to even suggest that second glove was left at Bundy, yet there is a ton of evidence to suggest that there was a second glove at Bundy.

Again, you are a cop at the scene, you see one glove, well what is your first thought, besides that he missing one glove? Where is the other one? If one glove came off in a struggle, couldn't two gloves have come off in a struggle?

The footprints going back into the killing cage, why did the killer go back, to look for his one glove or two gloves? His hat? The evidence suggests that the killer(s) used both the front and back exits, a car or another mode of exit transportation has to be someone where, so why would it have been impossible for the killer, who already "lost" one glove, wouldn't have lost the second glove much closer to the scene?

I still can't figure out how the glove came off in a struggle, but if it did, that cage wasn't that big, if it was Simpson he sure as hell would have knew what he was looking for and where to look for his "lost" items.

And I don't remember any cop being asked if he or she did look for a second glove, it was one of the questions the DA's wanted nothing to do with.

When you consider the facts surrounding the glove found at Rockingham and not a single trace of trace evidence to suggest that the killer was back there and lost the glove, how can you not think about the possibililty that the glove was left there on purpose?

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by limakey
I have to correct one part of your post. Vanatter and Lange said they had never met Fuhrman before that night but they were aware of who he was and why they knew of him. But like everything else, they tweaked it.

It was on one of the shows they were on and the reason why they changed their story is because it came out that it would have been impossible for them not have known about him because of the incident with Joe Britton.

Their story goes they knew that he had tried to transfer into their elite unit, at least twice and MF was angry that he kept getting denied the transfer. Thanks, Limie! I guess our inventive detective had a worse reputation than I thought. I knew they knew something was wrong with him at the DA's office. But I didn't know either Vannatter or Lange was aware of him.

:read: I guess I'll have to re-read that Vannatter/Lange book.

:seeya:

[limakey]

DS,

One of the things about Vanatter and Lange's book that always puzzled me, that was their focus on the glove and not on the socks found in the bedroom.

IMO, I think the socks are the most important piece of evidence in this case, yet the LAPD, DA's and even the lab techs didn't pay attention to them----until how many weeks later? Does that make sense to you?

And I laughed out loud at Vanatter's "Potential Suspect" explaination. First off, he doesn't realize that when he made that statement, he proved what all us NG's have been saying, that OJ Simpson was a suspect in the murder case, they knew where he was and they knew when he left. Yet, we have the diehards who refuse to even consider this information.

I know that on occassion I can be a "tad" stubborn, but I got to give many of these G's points in this area. I truly would want them on my side if I ever got in trouble!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
You know, the nurse's video tape testimony was the most disheartening thing about this whole case and IMO, proof of just how desperate the DA's were to win this case. Or at least proof of why they ensured they had all their scapegoats lined up to take the blame.

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know the defense was going to suggest that blood was planted?

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know what the defense was going to be?

To even suggest that the nurse never realized that he wasn't sure about how much blood he drew from Simpson until he heard Johnnie Cochran's opening statement would be laughable if it was just so darn sad!


Limakey, Peratis first testified in the Grand Jury when he estimated how much blood he drew from Simpson. He then testified in the preliminary hearing, again estimating how much blood he drew. At that time he had no idea that his estimation would be taken as an exact amount by the defense to make accusations that blood was planted from Simpson's reference sample.

The only thing sad thing here were the false accusations by the defense. Besides the fact that there was never any EDTA preserved blood found in any tested collected blood sample, every accusation of planing blood was proved false.

bobaugust,

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I remember watching the nurse testify in the prelim hearing, I remember watching the expression on his face when he was asked by the defense it he was sure about the amount he drew. He gave a positive answer with a little leeway on both sides. However, even with the amount of leeway he gave, it still does not account for the missing blood.

This man has been drawing blood for how many years? This man has testified in how many trials during his career? This man had absolutely no idea the defense, any defense team would ask this question and he had no idea how to answer it?

Your excuses for the DA's and their expert witnesses are beyond appalling, they actually border on galling.

Oh, it was only when Johnnie Cochran said that blood was missing is what triggered his memory? So what is his excuse for not going to the DA's right away? What excuse do you have for the DA's for not clearing this up in their case in chief? And what is your excuse for that unbelieveable video the DA's tried to get away with?

Sorry Mr. August, their was blood missing and it is a fact, the defense was able to show the jurors where the missing blood was. Too bad the DA's had to claim that he never drew that much blood. Either way, they were screwed and they knew it. IMO.

[limakey]

Wukong,

Why couldn't any of the blood from the samples been planted? Isn't it fair to say that the DA's expert, Martz, did a horrible job and that when it came to the civil trial, Petrocelli's own witness said that he was not even allowed to talk to Martz about the tests?

And isn't also fair to say that these tests were so new that even Rock Harmon said that if any trace was found in the samples, this case never should have been filed? But if no traces were found, then the defense had to change their plea to guilty?

When the ETDA issue came back to bite the DA's in the butt, it was then when the real singing and dancing began.

I believe the defense matched expert witness for expert witness and that the state's case was destroyed by their own witnesses. What was Martz thinking when he said, "well, I decided I was going to tell the truth, be more aggressive in my answers". What the hell was the jury suppose to think with statement?

And, how come the DA's never put him on in their case? Did they just become aware of the missing blood theory in Johnnie's open statements?

Any way you look at, IMO, the state loses and coming back months later, years later or whatever to say that it was the Big Mac that OJ ate is why EDTA was found is simply wrong.

I find it difficult to understand that when statements are made like this, that the whole picture isn't being looked at. How many times was blood found later in the case? How many times were the state's witnesses tore up and down by the defense? How many times did the state's witnesses suddenly remember something on the stand?

Have you ever done any research on other cases where EDTA was an issue? Are you positive that the police never would have planted the blood because they knew about EDTA?

It appears to me that who ever sweetened the blood evidence, either didn't know about EDTA or knew the subject very well and realized that again, it would be a song and dance routine by the DA's, one the majority of the media only glading started to sing the same song and do the same dance. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

I remember watching the nurse testify in the prelim hearing, I remember watching the expression on his face when he was asked by the defense it he was sure about the amount he drew. He gave a positive answer with a little leeway on both sides. However, even with the amount of leeway he gave, it still does not account for the missing blood.

This man has been drawing blood for how many years? This man has testified in how many trials during his career? This man had absolutely no idea the defense, any defense team would ask this question and he had no idea how to answer it?

Your excuses for the DA's and their expert witnesses are beyond appalling, they actually border on galling.

Oh, it was only when Johnnie Cochran said that blood was missing is what triggered his memory? So what is his excuse for not going to the DA's right away? What excuse do you have for the DA's for not clearing this up in their case in chief? And what is your excuse for that unbelieveable video the DA's tried to get away with?

Sorry Mr. August, their was blood missing and it is a fact, the defense was able to show the jurors where the missing blood was. Too bad the DA's had to claim that he never drew that much blood. Either way, they were screwed and they knew it. IMO.



Limakey, lets put a little reality into this. I know it's tough for you since you can't seem to get past the criminal trial.

The only problem with Peratis' testimony was it opened the door for the defense to make more unfounded, unsupported false claims. Claims that were all eventually proved wrong.

The fact is there was no missing blood. Period.
There was no blood ever planted in this case. Period. Every single claim of evidence planting was proved false.

Unfortunately the criminal defense strategy worked on anyone who was looking for an excuse, any excuse to avoid the truth of these murders. People evidently like you who try to justify the shameful tactics of the defense. I do understand why the defense had no choice but to use false accusations of evidence planting trying and conspiracy since there wasn't one single piece of evidence in this entire case that eliminated Simpson. Everything. Everything pointed to him. The reality is they were defending a guilty man and they believed anything goes. That's why they got the big bucks..

Their tactics and the prosecution errors may have set Simpson free, but it certainty doesn't change the truth. And the truth is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That's reality and the truth of these murders regardless if you're capable or not capable of understanding it or accepting it.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

It is very sad that even after all this time your real contempt is the fact that Mr. Simpson could and did hire his own team of experts who chewed up the DA's experts.

I find it laughable during the criminal trial how the cut on Simpson's hand had to have been with the knife, yet in the civil trial, they were fingernail scratches. Now, which one do we believe, the criminal trial expert or the civil trial expert?

The timeline, the DA's timeline was a joke, yet the civil trial lawyers, when confronted with the facts and the evidence, just changed the timeline and presto, everything works out then.

Mr. August, the civil trial was a joke. The verdict was determined
within seconds after the criminal trial verdict was announced. You and I both know that the TH's were not shy on saying how different it would be in Santa Monica and why it would be different.

Yet, they already based their civil trial verdict on the evidence that was presented in the criminal trial. That is why I didn't follow the civil trial closely, because I already knew how it was going to turn out and I was dealing with a very private situation during that time as well.

I'm very surprised that posters insist on saying the civil trial was a search for the truth when according to G's, you already knew the truth and didn't need any more evidence. Sad, very sad, IMO.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

It is very sad that even after all this time your real contempt is the fact that Mr. Simpson could and did hire his own team of experts who chewed up the DA's experts.

I find it laughable during the criminal trial how the cut on Simpson's hand had to have been with the knife, yet in the civil trial, they were fingernail scratches. Now, which one do we believe, the criminal trial expert or the civil trial expert?

The timeline, the DA's timeline was a joke, yet the civil trial lawyers, when confronted with the facts and the evidence, just changed the timeline and presto, everything works out then.

Mr. August, the civil trial was a joke. The verdict was determined
within seconds after the criminal trial verdict was announced. You and I both know that the TH's were not shy on saying how different it would be in Santa Monica and why it would be different.

Yet, they already based their civil trial verdict on the evidence that was presented in the criminal trial. That is why I didn't follow the civil trial closely, because I already knew how it was going to turn out and I was dealing with a very private situation during that time as well.

I'm very surprised that posters insist on saying the civil trial was a search for the truth when according to G's, you already knew the truth and didn't need any more evidence. Sad, very sad, IMO.



Limakey, you have things backwards.

It was the criminal trial jury that came back with a verdict after deliberating about three hours. In the civil trial the jury took I believe about five days.

What you can't seem to comprehend is all of the new information that we learned from the many depositions taken before the civil trial as well as the new evidence that was presented in the civil trial. And the most important difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial, Simpson's testimony. Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt. But according to you I guess you already knew that Simpson would lie his butt off, right? And evidently to your way of thinking that doesn't mean very much to you. Is that because Simpson is black? Or is that because he was a celebrity? Or do you just think that when a defendant accused of murder lies under oath about almost everything related to the murders it just isn't that important. Right?

The cut on Simpson's knuckle isn't really hard to understand. The knife cut he sustained dripped blood everywhere he went after the murders. Simpson most likely never even knew he was cut and bleeding until he got back to his house and took a quick shower and dressed to leave for the airport. After he was aware of the cut and tended to it, it wasn't that noticeable. Simpson had no problems keeping it out of sight.

When he was in his hotel room in Chicago and received the call from the police he agreed to come back to LA as quickly as possible. But he knew the cut was incriminating so he broke a glass and intentionally recut his knuckle making it very noticeable and he made sure everyone saw it. Simpson is no dummy.

In his initial statement to the police he didn't really know what they had on him so he lied whenever he believed his answer would be incriminating but he screwed up a couple of times. When Simpson was asked about how he cut himself he told the police he had been cut before.


June 13, 1994
Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house
I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the
bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Taz,

I'm answering your post from other thread here.

IMO, you are wrong about why the jurors had such a negative of the detectives in this case. While I do believe you are sincere that you never suspected OJ Simpson of the murders, it is impossible to believe that four detectives, with over a 100 years of experience between them, did not consider him a prime suspect.

Vanatter's absolutely insane reply to this question really helped seal the fate on this case. And I asked you before, what the purpose of a lie? Is it to cover up? Is it to protect? Why are lies told?

Vanatter was a billion percent impeached on this very important issue, by two mob wannabee mob guys, one who was dating Nicole's sister.

Do you truly believe that the jury did not hear Judge Ito's ruling regarding "reckless disregard of the truth"? While Judges often admit evidence and accept warrants when they don't believe the cops, it doesn't mean the jurors have to accept the Judge's ruling.
Judge Ito is perhaps one of the first judges that I know of who actually made reference about his issues with the warrant.

Now, if the judge doesn't even believe the cops, the DA's don't even believe the cops, why are surprised that the jury doesn't believe them?

If any jury has a negative image of the cops, it isn't their fault. They have based their opinons on the facts that were presented to them. They are the trier of facts. And how many times have you read about the older white juror, to this day she feels OJ did it but she still insists her verdict was correct and she feels that not only Fuhrman forced her to vote for aquittal but Vanatter wasn't being "square" with the jury either.

And lets be fair, Rodeny King's jury never, ever faced the wrath of the public like these jurors did. The jurors in that case said, look, we based our verdict on what we saw and heard in the testimony.

They felt they had no choice either in their verdict.

If you must rage against a jury, shouldn't the Rodney King jurors be the object of the rage?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat

The fact that the evidence was considered unreliable by top forensics experts is reason for doubt about the whole case.

Diddley,

The problem with this statement however is that Dr. Werner Spitz who is as renowned and respected as Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael Baden did find the evidence to be reliable.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Anything is possible..

However, factor in some of the collected blood was missing and all of a sudden another picture starts to emerge... The experts testified that any 'planted' blood would contain high concentrations of EDTA -- there was NONE.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Why else would Vannatter take OJ's blood back to Rockingham and Bundy? He didn't take it to Rockingham AND Bundy.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
weezer

look at the wagner link. read his narrative and look at the pictures, then think about it and then give me you honest opinion.
don't pay any attention to socal check it for your yourself.
i don't think you will loose anything. As I've said in the past, I don't put much stock in wagner's theories -- most of them are too farfetched for me. I do, however, believe the prosecution's (criminal and civil), LE's and experts' opinions on how the attacks took place. MOO

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i will find one for weezer and she can wear it to PTA meetings. No thanks. When I dress for Halloween, I buy my ghoul costumes at the store.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The blood was drawn by the POLICE nurse at LAPD HQ. Vannatter took the blood to Bundy and Rockingham to be logged by the Criminalist..

The nurse who drew the blood wrote on the tube how much blood was drawn.. When the defense recd the tube from the LAB it was document one amount, but the total amount in the SEALED tube was less than what was documented..

How could the defense cook up a little false tidbit? Vannattr did NOT take the blood to Rockingham AND Bundy. Please give a link to the nurse writing the amount of blood drawn on the tube. The defense was all about smoke and mirrors. MOO

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
That makes alot of sense, so when people say " How did they get OJ's blood while he was in Chicago? They didn't know who's blood belong to whom, until after it was processed at the LAB.. By that time Vannatter had taking OJ's blood back to Rockingham and Bundy to give the appearance the blood was collected by the Criminalist... Had it not been for the camera catching him in the act he would have gotten away with it...

Man, that something to think about... LOL -- wasn't it OJ's bad luck to have a cut on his left hand AND to say that he had seen blood on his hand (wiped some up from the kitchen counter and put a paper towel/napkin on his hand) at Rockingham BEFORE he left for Chicago. And wasn't it just his bad luck that his blood on the ground at the murder didn't have EDTA in it? Poor guy just couldn't catch a break could he?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

And lets be fair, Rodeny King's jury never, ever faced the wrath of the public like these jurors did. The jurors in that case said, look, we based our verdict on what we saw and heard in the testimony.

They felt they had no choice either in their verdict.

If you must rage against a jury, shouldn't the Rodney King jurors be the object of the rage?

WHAT?!

There were riots. There were innocent people hurt. There were 54 people killed. There was more rage at the Rodney King jurors than any other jury ever.

[Wukong]

Limakey,

I said that blood from the purple top tube with high levels of EDTA could not have been used for planting. This is also why I said the amount of blood drawn is a moot issue.

Martz did a good job in designing a test for EDTA. He used the right equipment and actually went above and beyond what was needed. This is why he got in trouble. If he would have stopped after the first two tests proved conclusive we would not even be talking about OJ except to discuss how he is surviving behind bars. No expert witness ever said Martz did a horrible job.

As you know, I have read all of the EDTA testimony. There are hundreds of pages and many, many hours of reading and re-reading in order to understand the testing performed. There was testimony from defense and prosecution witnesses. I was very thorough in my reading of testimony and conducted research when I did not fully understand something. I read technical documents on how a liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer works. I approached this study with no bias as to the outcome. I wish I could boil all the information down to a nice neat post, in laymans terms, that would make you understand why none of the blood samples tested could have come from OJs drawn sample. Unfortunately I can't do this. I have started threads and posted testimony along with my own explainations to try and simplify the technical jargon. Apparantly most people were lost because there was little to no response to my posts.

I have a feeling that people who are of the belief that OJ is innocent don't want to study the EDTA issue (a complete study, not just a search of testimony to find one or two sentences taken completely out of context, which are the only responses I ever got) because they know deep down it would prove the fact that OJ's blood could not have been planted. What fun would that be and where would that leave the their argument?? I have read all the facts and if you do this it would be absolutely clear that OJ's blood could not have been planted. I would post all the relevant facts that show this but I already know Not Guilties would not try to comprehend it, probably won't even read it. I may do it anyway just to make myself feel better.

Wukong

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
That was one of the most amazing things in this case, when you think about it. I often forget that argument entirely. But any time you have a considerable amount of blood that appears to be missing from a reference sample and then the nurse who took the sample has two different versions of how much blood he took, you have a case that even a rookie public defender should be able to shake. And in this case, the reference blood vial in question was carried to the crime scene. That was absolutely inexcusable. Honestly, the missing blood, the technician's evolving memories, and the incredibly stupid mistake of taking the reference blood to the crime scene - those are things that should signal to any sensible prosecutor that the jig was up. The cops botched the case, plain and simple. Diddley, even with all the botching, there is NO evidence that blood was planted. If you have links to the contrary, please post.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by Wukong
4) Instead of a jersey I'll bet Weezer would be more comfortable in a shirt with OJs mug shot on it.Wukong :beer:

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct? Not true.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

While you do acknowledge that police misconduct has happened in the past, for some reason, you simply deny that any police misconduct took place in this case and I truly don't understand it.

You posted that there is no evidence to even suggest that second glove was left at Bundy, yet there is a ton of evidence to suggest that there was a second glove at Bundy.

When you consider the facts surrounding the glove found at Rockingham and not a single trace of trace evidence to suggest that the killer was back there and lost the glove, how can you not think about the possibililty that the glove was left there on purpose?

Let me explain to you why I say that the misconduct didn't happen in certain aspects of this case. OJ lied. That means I do not trust what he said. Fuhrman lied. I do not trust what he said. So, I then have to look at the evidence and decide what is possible/plausible and what isn't. There were several officers who did not see a glove at the scene. I have to believe them because they weren't impeached. There was no reason to dismiss their testimony. Then, the noises behind Kato's wall, where the glove was found, the presumptive test on the wire for blood, the fibers consistent with the bronco carpet and OJ being spotted for the first time not long after that is all evidence of the glove being back there and not by Fuhrman. There is blood on the glove. Blood from OJ, Ron and Nicole. You dismiss everything regarding what Fuhrman saw because of PAST MISCONDUCT. I don't dismiss it. That's the difference between me and you. I am talking about here and now. I am talking about what the real evidence is. I am not talking about the judges instructions or the innocent until proven guilty. I wanted to know the real truth. The real truth is that OJ killed two people.

What is the evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy? You said tons....please post.

You are making up scenarios. If I am a cop at the scene my first thought is definately not about a second glove. It is completely rediculous to think that Fuhrman would grab that glove so soon in the investigation since no one knew anything about OJ yet.

What evidence suggests that the killer used both front and back to escape? You question regarding "WHAT IF's" is just that. What if. The simple answer is that the glove was not seen at Bundy. You can't "make up" what could have happened without evidence.

If Simpson was looking for his lost items he couldn't find them. It was dark and there were plants. As a matter of fact, the hat was found under the plant. We don't know the specifics because Simpson won't explain. We can only speculate.

Yes, the cops were asked if they saw a second glove. The DA's weren't trying to hide from this question.

There was evidence that someone was back there. I don't understand why you insist on saying that there wasn't. I have told you several times what the evidence is and you dismiss it. You dismiss it for a "possibility" of framing. Yet you say that there wasn't a trace of evidence. I have thought about the possibility that it was left there. There is enough evidence that it was dropped back there by Simpson to convince me that any other scenerio is not plausible.

Sometimes I think that your prejudice towards LE makes you unable to look at the evidence in a open minded way. I am talking about the evidence not the trial.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


wukong

maby you can help me with this .

under normal everyday blood draws a vacutainer type vile is used
to draw and store blood.

even happens everytime i give blood at the doctors office.
it was also the procedure at lapd lab.

why did Paratis on this ocassion NOT USE A VACUTAINER to draw ojs blood?

ray

Ray,

The decision to use a vacutainer or syringe is up to the phlebotomist who makes that determination based on numerous factors. There is no set procedure at LAPD that says you must use a vacutainer. I don't know where you got that from? Many phlebotomists prefer to use a syringe over a vacutainer (My Ex preferred syringe) because they have more control. If a patient has large veins close to the skin a syringe is preferable. A vacutainer sucks the blood out automatically so the phlebotomist has no control over flow and is unable to stop the flow.

Wukong

[limakey]

Wukong,

I have no doubt about your passion to understand EDTA. The problem I have is when a few tibets are thrown in that instead of putting a close to the issue, it really does raise more questions.

For example, the color of the test tube stopper is the proof that the blood was not planted. Well what if the color of the stopper was green, does that then mean the blood could have planted if it was stored in a test tube with green stopper?

I hope you understand this example and I mean no offense to anyone, but I remember the battle about a woman's right to an abortion. Instead of people just coming out and saying that it is a woman's choice, period and it is none of the government's, doctor's or even the public's business how and why a woman has made this choice.

People just had to keep throwing out truly insane points on when abortion was okay to have. Again, I mean no offense to anyone on the boards, but the big point, when and where I was growing up, always focused on a white woman being raped by a black man. I remember thinking, even then, what what if a white man rapes a white woman, does that mean she has to keep the baby?
And what happens if the rapist is an Asian, he really isn't black but he isn't white, does the child who is conceived just get put up for adoption? IMO, abortion is either all right or its all wrong and it is the stipulations that still cause such a great debate on this issue.

IMO, either there was EDTA in the blood samples or it wasn't. And if EDTA was in any of the samples, why didn't all the samples have it? How could the Big Mac Attack account for EDTA to be found in some samples and not in others?

And I do believe that Martz was not fair or honest witness. He was called out and reprimanded about his testimony on the Simpson case. Granted, the reprimand never came out and said he lied or whatever but there was just enough jargon in it to clearly dilute the true reasoning behind him being investigated in the first place and why he was reprimanded.

[Wukong]

Ray,

During the criminal trial it was not known that EDTA does not occur naturally in human blood. When someone found out that Big Mac special sauce has EDTA in it they surmised that since OJ ate one this is how EDTA showed up. This was later proven not to be the case.

Dr. Reiders (defense expert) did say he approved of the procedures but could not explain the results. He was quite a pompous man and said "You have to ask Martz". He never offered an explaination of how this could happen. So they did ask Martz and he explained for hours. It was a very thorough explaination that left no doubt as to what happened.

Wukong

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know the defense was going to suggest that blood was planted?

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know what the defense was going to be? Some of us thought it was a murder case -- I'm sure Paratis did too. BTW, if LE was framing OJ, why not say they had only collected 6.5 cc's?

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
When you consider the facts surrounding the glove found at Rockingham and not a single trace of trace evidence to suggest that the killer was back there and lost the glove, how can you not think about the possibililty that the glove was left there on purpose? Where did the glove come from to start with?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
IMO, you are wrong about why the jurors had such a negative of the detectives in this case. While I do believe you are sincere that you never suspected OJ Simpson of the murders, it is impossible to believe that four detectives, with over a 100 years of experience between them, did not consider him a prime suspect.

Vanatter was a billion percent impeached on this very important issue, by two mob wannabee mob guys, one who was dating Nicole's sister.




I do not believe that they considered him a PRIME suspect when they went over there. I also believe that the blood alone warrants a cause to go on the property.

There was more than enough evidence to get a search warrant. I wish Vannatter would have listed it all. I also wish he would have worded it better. Vannatter says that OJ wasn't a prime suspect when he went over there. If the judge didn't believe him then he wouldn't have kept the search in. Also, don't forget that the search was ruled on twice. That is also almost NEVER done. They get one chance. Period. And, both times the search was ruled admissable. Ito's remarks were reckless in themselves. He shouldn't have made that remark if he ruled to admit the search.

Vannatter didn't lie. He was not impeached. You should re-read the "mob" guys testimony and cross.

And, I answered you regarding why a lie is told. And, you still haven't responded regarding OJ's lies. Why would he lie Limakey? What does HE have to cover up? Fuhrman lied to cover up his bigotry. Simpson lied to cover up what? Why did he lie about so much? Why didn't he take the stand in his defense in the criminal trial? Why did he lie in the civil trial?

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
Their story goes they knew that he had tried to transfer into their elite unit, at least twice and MF was angry that he kept getting denied the transfer. This is not true -- please post a link to Lange and Vannatter knowing this. Also, please post link to MF being denied twice and being angry about it.

[fbgweezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Thanks, Limie! I guess our inventive detective had a worse reputation than I thought. I knew they knew something was wrong with him at the DA's office. But I didn't know either Vannatter or Lange was aware of him.

:read: I guess I'll have to re-read that Vannatter/Lange book.

:seeya: Try reading Toobin's book -- might be a real eye opener for you.

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
It appears to me that who ever sweetened the blood evidence, either didn't know about EDTA or knew the subject very well and realized that again, it would be a song and dance routine by the DA's, one the majority of the media only glading started to sing the same song and do the same dance. IMO. You just destroyed your whole argument about EDTA and planted blood. Had LE known about EDTA, they would not have planted blood because they would have known it would be identified in the testing. Since there was NO EDTA in OJ's blood at the murder scene, it obviously was not planted. Your argument makes no sense. IMO

[fbgweezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
Sorry Mr. August, their was blood missing and it is a fact, the defense was able to show the jurors where the missing blood was. Too bad the DA's had to claim that he never drew that much blood. Either way, they were screwed and they knew it. IMO. The defense didn't show the jurors squat -- IIRC, the jurors said they didn't understand the DNA testimony so they didn't consider it.

How many times do you need to be told that there was NO EDTA in OJ's blood found at the murder scene? Not a far jump to draw the conclusion that it could not have been planted.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by limakey
Wukong,

IMO, either there was EDTA in the blood samples or it wasn't. And if EDTA was in any of the samples, why didn't all the samples have it? How could the Big Mac Attack account for EDTA to be found in some samples and not in others?

And I do believe that Martz was not fair or honest witness. He was called out and reprimanded about his testimony on the Simpson case. Granted, the reprimand never came out and said he lied or whatever but there was just enough jargon in it to clearly dilute the true reasoning behind him being investigated in the first place and why he was reprimanded.

Limakey,

Your response above about EDTA being in blood samples or not being there is exactly what I am talking about. This is the common simplistic response due to ignorance of not reading and understanding the testimony.

The reason EDTA wasn't in other samples is because Martz was not asked to test any other samples. He only tested the blood from the gate and the sock because it was found later and the prosecution asserted it was because it was planted using OJ's sample.

I posted earlier that the Big Mac story was just that, a story. It was later found not to be true.

The reason Martz was investigated stems from charges made by Fredrick Whitehurst, disgruntled lab employee:

"In September 1995, the Department of Justice announced that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was investigating allegations made by Frederic Whitehurst about the FBI Laboratory. Whitehurst is an FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) with a doctorate in chemistry who has worked in the FBI Laboratory since 1986. During most of his career in the Laboratory, Whitehurst performed chemical analyses of explosives and explosives residue, and his criticisms relate primarily to bombings and explosives cases."

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/01new2b.htm

After the investigation Martz was reprimanded. There was no "jargon or dilution" of the investigation. It was all documented very clearly:

"As discussed in Part Three, Section F, we also conclude that Martz did not perjure himself, give misleading testimony, or improperly erase digital data in the Simpson case. Martz undermined his credibility by his poor choice of words in stating that he had decided to be more truthful in his testimony and by agreeing with defense counsel that he had destroyed certain data. By his lack of adequate preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his demeanor at trial, Martz did not serve the Laboratory well in that case."

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/23new5a.htm

Wukong

[Wukong]

I just saw a post on Iago that the Dumb-azz site was shut down by the FBI. Not sure if this is true or not but it would be very interesting if it turns out to be true. Was Mario getting too close for comfort?

Wukong